Dmitri Tymoczko

Princeton University
dmitri@princeton.edu
ROOT MOTION, FUNCTION, SCALE-DEGREE:
a grammar for elementary tonal harmony
The paper considers three theories that have been used to explain tonal harmony:
root-motion theories, which emphasize the intervallic distance between successive chordroots; scale-degree theories, which assert that the triads on each scale degree tend to
move in characteristic ways; and function theories, which group chords into larger
(functional) categories. Instead of considering in detail actual views proposed by
historical figures such as Rameau, Weber, and Riemann, I shall indulge in what the
logical positivists used to call rational reconstruction. That is, I will construct simple
and testable theories loosely based on the more complex views of these historical figures.
I will then evaluate those theories using data gleaned from the statistical analysis of
actual tonal music.
The goal of this exercise is to determine whether any of the three theories can
produce a simple grammar of elementary tonal harmony. Tonal music is characterized
by the fact that certain progressions (such as I-IV-V-I) are standard and common, while
others (such as I-V-IV-I) are nonstandard and rare. A grammar, as I am using the term,
is a simple set of principles that generates all and only the standard tonal chord
progressions. I shall describe these chord progressions as syntactic, and the rare,
nonstandard progressions as nonsyntactic. 1 This distinction should not be taken to
imply that nonsyntactic progressions never appear in works of tonal music: some great

Intuitions about the grammaticality of chord-sequences and natural language sentences are importantly
different, not least in that the semantics of natural language reinforces our intuitions about syntax.
Nongrammatical sentences of natural language often lack a clear meaning. This helps to create very strong
intuitions that these sentences are (somehow) wrong, or defective. Chord-sequences, even well-formed
ones, do not have meaning. This means that their grammaticality is more closely related to their statistical
prevalence: even a nonsyntactic tonal progression like I-V-IV-I sounds less wrong than unusual (or
nonstylistic). Nevertheless, there is an extensive pedagogical and theoretical tradition which attempts to
provide rules and principles for forming acceptable chord-progressions. It seems reasonable to use the
word syntactic in connection with this enterprise.

Tymoczko2

tonal music contains nonsyntactic chord progressions, just as some great literature
contains nongrammatical sentences. Nevertheless, we do have a good intuitive grasp of
the difference between standard and nonstandard progressions. My question is whether
any of the three theories considered provide a clear set of principles that accurately
systematizes our intuitions about tonal syntax.
The term tonal music describes a vast range of musical styles from Monteverdi
to Coltrane. It is clearly hopeless to attempt to provide a single set of principles that
describes all of this music equally well. Following a long pedagogical tradition, I will
therefore be using Bachs chorale harmonizations as exemplars of elementary diatonic
harmony. I will also make a number of additional, simplifying approximations. First, I
will confine myself exclusively to major-mode harmony. Second, I will, where possible,
discard chord-inversions. This is because tonal chord progressions can typically appear
over multiple bass lines. (Exceptions to this rule will be noted below.) Third, I will
disregard the difference between triads and seventh chords. This is because there are
very few situations in which a seventh chord is required to make a progression syntactic;
in general, triads can be freely used in places where seventh chords are appropriate.2
Fourth, I will for the most part consider only phrases that begin and end with tonic triads.
Tonal phrases occasionally begin with nontonic chords, and frequently end with halfcadences on V. However, these phrases are often felt to be unusual or incomplete
testifying to a background expectation that tonal phrases should end with the tonic.
Finally, I will be considering only diatonic chord progressions. It is true that Bachs
major-mode chorales frequently involve modulations, secondary dominants, and the use
of other chords foreign to the tonic scale. But these chromatic harmonies can often be
understood to embellish a more fundamental, purely diatonic substrate.
Historians may well feel that I am drawing overly sharp distinctions between rootmotion, scale-degree, and functional theories. Certainly, many theorists have drawn
freely on all three traditions. (Rameau in particular is an important progenitor of all of
the theories considered in this paper.) In treating these three theories in isolation, it may
2

There are some exceptions to this rule. Bach avoided using the root-position leading-tone triad, though he
used the leading-tone seventh chord in root position. Since I am disregarding inversions, this does not
create problems for my view.

Tymoczko3

therefore seem that I am constructing straw-men, creating implausibly rigid theories that
no actual human being has ever heldand that cannot describe any actual music. It bears
repeating, therefore, that my goal here is not a historical one. It is, rather, to see how well
we can explain the most elementary features of tonal harmony on the basis of a few
simple principles. In doing so, we will hopefully come to appreciate how these various
principles can be combined.
1. Root-motion theories.
a) Theoretical perspectives.
Root-motion theories descend from Rameau (1722) and emphasize the relations
between successive chords rather than the chords themselves. A pure root-motion theory
asserts that syntactic tonal progressions can be characterized solely in terms of the type of
root motion found between successive harmonies. Good tonal progressions feature a
restricted set of root motions, such as motion by descending fifth or descending third; bad
tonal progressions feature atypical motion, such as root motion by descending second.
Figures such as Rameau, Schoenberg (1969), Sadai (1980), and Meeus (2000), have all
explored root-motion theories. In most cases, these writers have supplemented their
theories with additional considerations foreign to the root-motion perspective. Meeus,
however, comes close to articulating the sort of pure root-motion theory that we shall be
considering here.
A pure root-motion theory involves two principles. The first might be called the
principle of scale-degree symmetry. This principle asserts that all diatonic harmonies
participate equally in the same set of allowable root motions. It is just this principle that
distinguishes root-motion theorieswhich focus on the intervallic distance between
successive harmoniesfrom more conventional views, in which individual harmonies
are the chief units of analysis. As we shall see, this is also the most problematic aspect of
root-motion theories. It is what led Rameau to supplement his root-oriented principles
with arguments about the distinctive voice-leading of the V7-I progression. In this way,
he was able to elevate the V-I progression above the other descending-fifth progressions
in the diatonic scale.

Tymoczko4

The second principle is the principle of root-motion asymmetry, which asserts that
certain types of root motion are preferable to others. For example: in tonal phrases,
descending-fifth root motion is common, while ascending-fifth root motion is relatively
rare. (The strongest forms of this principle absolutely forbid root motion by certain
intervals, as Rameau did with descending seconds.) Meeus and other root-motion
theorists take these asymmetries to characterize the difference between modal and tonal
styles.
What is particularly attractive about root-motion theories is the way they promise
to provide an explanation of functional tendencies. These tendencies are often thought to
be explanatorily basic: for many theorists, it is just a brute fact that the V chord tends to
proceed downward by fifth to the I chord, one that cannot be explained in terms of any
more fundamental musical principles. Likewise, it is just a fact that a subdominant IV
chord tends to proceed up by step to the V chord. Root-motion theories, by contrast,
promise to provide a deeper level of explanation, one in which each tonal chords
individual propensities can be explained in terms of a small, shared set of allowable root
motions.
To see how this might work, let us briefly consider the details of Meeuss theory.
Meeus (2000) divides tonal chord progressions into dominant and subdominant
types. For Meeus, root motion by fifth is primary: descending-fifth motion represents the
prototypical dominant progression, while ascending-fifth motion is prototypically
subdominant. Meeus additionally allows two classes of substitute progression: rootprogression by third can substitute for a fifth-progression in the same direction; and
root-progression by step can substitute for a fifth-progression in the opposite direction.
These categories are summarized in Example 1, which has been reprinted from Meeus
(2000). Meeus does not explicitly say why third-progressions can substitute for fifth
progressions, but his explanation of the second sort of substitution follows Rameau.3 For
Meeus, ascending-step progressions such as IV-V, represent an elision of an intermediate
harmony which is a third below the first chord and a fifth above the second. Thus a IV-V
3

Schoenberg classifies descending-fifth and descending-third progressions together because in these

progressions the root note of the first chord is preserved in the second. Meeus presumably has something
similar in mind.

Tymoczko5

progression on the surface of a piece of music stands for a more fundamental IV-ii-V
progression that does not appear. The insertion of this intermediate harmony allows the
seemingly anomalous IV-V progression to be explained as a series of two dominant
progressions, one a substitute descending-third progression, the other descending by
fifth.
Consider now Example 2, which arranges the seven major-scale triads in
descending third sequence. Meeuss three types of dominant progression can be
explained by three types of rightward motion along the graph of Example 2. Descendingfifth progressions represent motion two steps to the right. Descending third progressions
represent motion a single step to the right. Ascending seconds represent motion three
steps to the right, eliding a descending third progression (one step to the right) with a
descending fifth progression (two more steps to the right). Meeuss view is that these
three types of rightward motion together constitute the allowable moves in any wellformed tonal progression.
This theory, as it stands, is problematic. The first difficulty is that normal tonal
phrases tend to begin and end with the tonic chord. A pure root-motion theory has
difficulty accounting for this fact, for it requires privileging the I chord relative to the
other diatonic harmonies. This runs counter to the principle of scale-degree symmetry.
Indeed the very essence of root-motion theories is to argue that root motion, and not an
abstract hierarchy of chords, determines the syntactic tonal chord progressions. Yet it
seems that we must assert such a chordal hierarchy if we are to explain why tonal
progressions do not commonly begin and end with nontonic chords. This represents a
significant philosophical concession on the part of root-motion theorists. Let us ignore its
implications for the moment, however, and simply add an additional postulate to Meeuss
system, requiring that syntactic progressions begin and end with the I chord.
The second problem has to do with the iii chord, which has been bracketed in
Example 2. Meeuss root-motion theory predicts that progressions such as V-iii-I, ii-iii-I,
and vii-iii-I, should be common. Indeed, from a pure root-motion perspective, such
progressions are no more objectionable than progressions such as ii-V-I and vi-IV-V-I.
But actual tonal music does not bear this out. Mediant-tonic progressions are extremely

Tymoczko6
rare in the music of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.4 (They are slightly less
rare, though by no means common, in the later nineteenth century.) Again, it seems that
we need to extend Meeuss theory by attributing to iii a special status based on its
position in an abstract tonal hierarchy. I propose that we eliminate it from consideration,
forbidding any progressions that involve the iii chord on Example 2. This amounts to
asserting that the iii chord is not a part of basic diatonic harmonic syntax. 5
We can now return to Example 2, and consider all the chord progressions that a)
begin and end with the tonic triad; b) involve only motion by one, two, or three steps to
the right; and c) do not involve the iii chord. Considering first only those progressions
that involve a single rightward pass through the graph, we find 20 progressions. They are
listed in Example 3. Note that we can generate an infinite number of additional
progressions by allowing the V chord to move three steps to the right, past the I chord, to
the vi chord. (This wrapping around from the right side of the graph to the left
represents the traditional deceptive progression.) We will discount this possibility for
the moment.
It can be readily seen that all the progressions in Example 3 are syntactic. More
interestingly, all of them can be interpreted functionally as involving T-S-D-T (tonicsubdominant-dominant-tonic) progressions. (In half of the progressions, the subdominant
chord is preceded by vi, which I have here described as a pre-subdominant chord,
abbreviated PS.) Perhaps most surprisingly, Example 3 is substantially complete.
Indeed, we can specify the progressions on that list by the following equivalent, but
explicitly functional, principles:
1. Chords are categorized in terms of functional groups.
a. the I chord is the tonic.
b. the V and vii chords are dominant chords.
4

The augmented mediant triad occasionally seems to function as a dominant chord in Bachs minor-mode
music. However, mediant-tonic progressions are very rare in major. Furthermore, many cases in which
mediants appear to function as dominant chordsparticularly the first-inversion iii chord in majorare
better explained as embellishments of V chords (V13 or V add 6).
5
Note that the iii chord gets counted, even though the chord itself cannot be used. For example motion
from V to I involves moving two steps to the right, even though the iii chord cannot itself participate in
syntactic chord progressions.

Tymoczko7

c. the ii and IV chords are sub-dominant chords.

d. the vi chord is a pre-subdominant chord.
2. Syntactic progressions move from tonic to subdominant to dominant to tonic.
a. the first subdominant chord in a T-S-D-T sequence may be preceded
by a pre-subdominant chord, though this is not required.
b. It is allowable to move between functionally identical chords only
when the root of the first chord lies a third above the root of the
second.
These principles capture, to a reasonable first approximation, an important set of tonallyfunctional progressions, namely the T-S-D-T progressions.6 Such sequences are arguably
the most prototypical tonal progressions, as they involve the three main tonal functions
all behaving in the most typical manner. Thus it even the more remarkable that we have
generated all the progressions meeting these criteria without any overt reference to the
notion of chord function. Instead, we have derived a notion of tonal function from rootmotion considerations. It is true that we have asserted that the I and iii chords have a
special status. But beyond that, we have relied on root-motion constraints to generate our
functional categories.7
The significance of all this is, I believe, a matter that merits further investigation.
On the one hand, it may be that in deriving functional progressions from root-motion
considerations, we have engaged in a piece of merely formalistic manipulation, devoid of
real musical significance. (Particularly suspicious here are the non-root-motion
principles by which we have increased the significance of the I chord, and demoted that
of the iii chord.) On the other hand, the root-motion principles embodied in Meeuss
(modified) theory may indicate a reason for the tonal systems longevity: it is perhaps the
preference for dominant progressions that explains why T-S-D-T progressions are felt

My functional categories are more restrictive than Riemanns: I consider ii and IV to be the only
subdominant chords, and V and vii to be the only dominant chords. For more on this, see Section 2(b),
below.
7
We can expand the progressions on this list by allowing progressions that wrap around the graph of
Example 2. This is equivalent to adding the following functional principle to 1-2, above:
3*. Dominant chords can also progress to vi as part of a deceptive progression.

Tymoczko8

to be particularly satisfactory. Furthermore, Meeuss theory suggests a plausible

mechanism by which the functional categories subdominant and dominant could
have arisen. Meeus himself has proposed that functional tonality arose as composers
gradually began to favor dominant progressions over subdominant progressions. If
historians could document this process, it would represent a substantial step forward in
the explanation of the origin of tonal harmony. In the next section, I will consider
evidence that bears on this issue.
b) Empirical data
Let us informally test Meeuss hypothesis that tonal music involves a preference
for dominant chord progressions. Example 4(a) presents the results of a computational
survey of chord progressions in the Bach chorales. This table was generated from MIDI
files of the 186 chorales published by Kirnberger and C.P.E. Bach (BWV nos. 253-438).
The analysis that produced this table was extremely unsophisticated: the computer simply
looked for successive tertian sonorities (both triads and seventh-chords), and measured
the interval between their roots. The computer was unable to recognize passing or other
nonharmonic tones, or even to know whether a chord progression crossed phraseboundaries. Thus a great number of legitimate chord progressions, perhaps even the
majority of the progressions to be found in the chorales, were ignored. More than a few
spurious progressions, which would not be considered genuine by a human analyst,
were doubtless included. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the data in Example
4(a) provide a very approximate view of the root-motion asymmetry in Bachs chorales.
Example 4(b), by way of contrast, shows the results of a similar survey of a random
collection of 17 Palestrina compositions.8
Comparison of Examples 4(a) and 4(b) provides limited support for Meeuss
theory. There is, as expected, more root-motion asymmetry in Bachs (tonal) chorales
than in Palestrinas (modal) mass movements. However, the difference is less dramatic
than one might have expected. This is due to two factors: first, there is already a

The pieces were downloaded from the website www.classicalarchives.com.

Tymoczko9
noticeable asymmetry in Palestrinas modal music.9 Second, Bachs music involves a
higher-than-expected proportion of subdominant progressions. Meeus (2000)
hypothesizes that fully 90% of the progressions in a typical tonal piece are of the
dominant type. Example 4(a) suggests that the true percentage is closer to 75%.
Example 5 attempts to explore this issue by way of a more sophisticated analysis
of 30 major-mode Bach chorales. These chorales, along with a Roman-numeral analysis
of their harmonies, were translated into the Humdrum notation format by Craig Sapp.
(The Appendix lists the specific chorales used.) I rechecked, and significantly revised,
Sapps analyses. I then programmed a computer to search the 30 chorales for all the
chord progressions that a) began and ended with a tonic chord; and b) involved only
unaltered diatonic harmonies. Example 5 lists the 169 resulting progressions, categorized
by functional type. The first column of the example lists the actual chords involved. The
second analyzes the progression as a series of dominant and subdominant root
motions in Meeuss sense. The third column lists the number of chord progressions of
that type found in the 30 chorales.10
The results reveal both the strengths and weaknesses of a root-motion approach.
On the positive side, the modified root-progression theory we have been considering
accurately captures all of the chord progressions belonging to the T-S-D-T functional
category, and a majority of the progressions in which vi functions as a pre-subdominant
chord (category 4[a] on Example 5). It is also noteworthy that a large number of the
possible dominant progressions appear in Example 5. Example 6 lists the five dominant
progressions, out of a possible 21, that do not appear. It can be seen that all but one of
these progressions (viiV) involve the iii chord. This is in keeping the view, proposed
earlier, that the mediant chord has an anomalous role within the tonal system. By
contrast, less than half of the possible subdominant progressions appear in Example 5,
9

This phenomenon is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the data in Example 4(b) do cast doubt on
the simplistic picture of modal music as involving no preference at all for dominant over subdominant
progressions.
10
Note that throughout Example 5, I have for the most part ignored chord-inversion, and have treated triads

and sevenths as equivalent. I have also discounted cadential I chords for the purposes of identifying
subdominant and dominant progressions. Here I am following recent theorists in treating these chords
as functionally anomalousperhaps as being the products of voice-leading, rather than as functional
harmonies in their own right (see Aldwell and Schachter 2002).

Tymoczko10

and these are, as Example 7 shows, strongly asymmetrical as to type. Indeed, fully 87%
of Example 7s subdominant progressions be accounted for by just three chord
progressions: I-V, IV-I, and V-IV6. The relative scarcity of subdominant progressions,
both in terms of absolute numbers, and in terms of the types of chord progressions
involved, suggests that there is something right about Meeuss theory. Dominant
progressions are much more typical of tonal music than subdominant progressions.
They can, as Schoenberg writes, be used more or less without restriction.
Nevertheless, Example 5 does pose two serious problems for a pure root-motion
view of tonality. The first is that subdominant progressions tend to violate the principle
of scale-degree symmetry. The second is that these same progressions seem to violate
the much deeper principle of root-functionality. I shall briefly discuss each difficulty in
turn.
1. Subdominant progressions and scale-degree symmetry. Meeus proposes that a
well-formed tonal phrase should consist of dominant progressions exclusively. Yet the
two most common chord progressions in Example 5 both violate this rule. I-V-I and IIV-I both involve subdominant root motion by ascending fifth. Other common
progressions involve similarly forbidden types of root motion: V-IV6, which appears 10
times in Example 5, and vi-V, which appears three times, both involve root motion by
descending second. vi-I6, which appears four times, involves root motion by ascending
third.
Schoenberg and Meeus both try to provide rules that account for such
progressions solely in terms of root-motion patterns. Schoenberg writes:
Descending progressions [i.e. progressions in which roots ascend by third or fifth,
which Meeus calls subdominant], while sometimes appearing as a mere
interchange (I-V-V-I, I-IV-IV-I), are better used in combinations of three chords
which, like I-V-VI or I-III-VI, result in a strong progression.11
Meeuss view is that while tonal progressions may sometimes involve subdominant
11

Schoenberg 1969, 8.

Tymoczko11
progressions, these are not normally found in direct succession.12 This suggests a rootmotion principle according to which isolated subdominant progressions can be freely
inserted into chains of dominant progressions.
Neither of these proposals can account for the data in Example 5. The
fundamental problem is that the subdominant progressions in Example 5 strongly violate
the principle of scale degree symmetry. For example: though some ascending-fifth
progressions are very common (e.g. I-V, IV-I), others do not appear at all (e.g. V-ii, viiIV). Likewise, while progressions like vi-V and vi-I6 are relatively common, other
progressions involving similar root motionfor instance, ii-I, and I-iii6are not. This
means that pure root-motion theories will have serious difficulties accounting for the role
of subdominant root-progressions in elementary tonal harmony. For these progressions
violate the cardinal principle of root-motion theories, namely scale-degree symmetry.
Note that, in contrast to the subdominant progressions, the dominant progressions
do by and large tend to obey the principle of scale-degree symmetry. While it is true that
some dominant progressions (such as V-I) appear more than others, it is also true that,
with the exception of those progressions listed in Example 6, the dominant progressions
are all fairly common. This is in keeping with the root-motion principle that diatonic
triads can freely move by way of descending fifths and thirds, or by ascending second.
Aside from the anomalous mediant triad, the sole exception to this rule concerns the vii
chord, which tends to ascend by step rather than descending by third or fifth.
2. Inversion-specific subdominant progressions. A second and more interesting
difficulty is that some subdominant progressions typically involve specific chords in
specific inversions. For example: a root-position IV chord does not typically occur after
a root-position dominant triad, though the progression V-IV6 is quite common. This fact
represents a challenge not just to root-motion theories, but to the very notion of rootfunctionalitythat is, to the very notion that one can determine the syntactic chord
progressions solely by considering the root of each chord.13 The presence of inversion12

This assertion is inconsistent with his assertion that well-formed progressions consist entirely of
dominant progressions.
13
Schoenberg (1969, p. 6) writes: The structural meaning of a harmony depends exclusively on the degree
of the scale. The appearance of the third, fifth, or seventh in the bass serves only for greater variety in the
second melody. Structural functions are asserted by root progression (Schoenbergs italics).

Tymoczko12

specific chord progressions reminds us that the almost universally accepted principle of
root-functionality is in fact only an approximation.
A good number of these inversion-specific progressions can be attributed to the
intersubstitutability of IV6 and vi.14 The anomalous vi in a vi-I6 progression can be
understood as substituting for the IV6 chord in the more typical (though still
subdominant) IV6-I6 progression. Likewise, one can interpret the atypical V-IV6
progression as involving the substitution of IV6 for vi. The fact that these chords are
similar is not altogether surprising, since they share two common pitches and the same
bass note. It is as if vi and IV6 were two versions of the same chord, one having a perfect
fifth above the bass, the other a minor sixth. Putting the point in this way suggests that
the principle of bass-functionality, rather than root-functionality, may be needed to
explain the resemblance between IV6 and vi. Clearly, it is difficult for root-motion
theories to account for this fact. Since they are strongly committed to the principle of
root-functionality, these theories must treat vi and IV6 as fundamentally different
harmonies.
2. Scale degree and function theories
a) Scale-degree theories
Scale-degree theories descend from Vogler (1776) and Weber (1817-21), and
begin with the postulate that diatonic triads on different scale degrees each move in their
own characteristic ways. This postulate underwrites the familiar practice of Romannumeral analysis. By identifying each chords root, and assigning it a scale-degree
number, the scale-degree theorist purports to sort diatonic chords into functional
categories.15 Thus scale-degree theorists cut the Gordian knot that besets root-motion
theorists: abandoning the principle of scale-degree symmetry, they allow that different
diatonic triads may participate in fundamentally different kinds of motion.
Scale degree theories are often represented by a map showing the allowable
transitions from chord to chord. (Example 8 reprints the map from Stefan Kostka and
14

This intersubstitutability is highlighted in Aldwell and Schachter 2002.

I am here using the term function in a broad sense. The point is that chords sharing the same root tend
to behave in similar ways.
15

Tymoczko13
Dorothy Paynes harmony textbook.16) Scale-degree theories can also be represented by
what are called first-order Markov models. A first-order Markov model consists of a set
of numbers representing the probability of transitions from one state of a system to
another. In the case of elementary diatonic harmony, the states of the system represent
individual chords. Transition probabilities represent the likelihood of a progression from
a given chord to any other. Thus a simple scale-degree theory of elementary diatonic
harmony can be expressed as a 7 x 7 matrix representing the probability that any diatonic
chord will move to any other.17
Example 9 presents such a matrix, generated by statistical analysis of Bach
chorales. To produce this table, I surveyed all the 2-chord diatonic progressions in the 30
chorales analyzed by Sapp. A total of 956 progressions were found.18 This table is meant
to be read from left to right: thus, moving across the first row of Example 9, we see that
23% of the I chords (73 out of a total of 315 progressions) move to another I chord;
11% of the progressions (36 out of 315) move to a ii chord; 0% move to a iii; 23% move
to a IV; and so on. Perusing the table shows that the different chords do indeed tend to
participate in fundamentally different sorts of root motion. Fully 81% of the vii chords
proceed up by step to a I chord, whereas only 11% of the I chords move up by step.
Likewise, almost a third (31%) of the I chords move up by fifth, compared to a mere 1%
of the V chords. These results provide yet another reason for rejecting the principle of
scale-degree symmetry, and with it, pure root-motion accounts of diatonic harmony.
Example 10 explores a modified version of the matrix given in Example 9. Here I
have altered the numbers in Example 9, in order to produce the closest approximation to
the chord progressions listed in Example 5. The actual probability values that I used are
given in Example 10(a); Example 10(b) lists a random set of 169 chord progressions
16

Kostka and Payne 2000.

A Markov model is superior to a harmonic map in that it can show the relative frequency of chord
progressions. Thus, while a map might indicate that one may progress from ii to V and vii, the Markov
model also shows how likely these transitions are.
18
This number is much higher than the number of progressions found in Example 5. In order to obtain the
largest possible number of progressions, I permitted phrases containing nondiatonic triads. One should
threfore treat these numbers as approximate: Sapp analyzed most of the non-diatonic chords in these
chorales in terms of the tonic key of the chorale, rather than the local key of the phrase. Thus a I-IV
progression in a phrase that modulated to the dominant would be described by Sapp as a V-I progression,
since IV in the (local) dominant key is I in the (global) tonic. My analysis here does not correct for this
fact.
17

Tymoczko14

produced by the model. Comparison of Example 10(b) with Example 5 shows that the
first-order Markov model does an excellent job of approximating the progressions found
in Bachs chorales. Almost all of the progressions generated by the model are plausible,
syntactic tonal progressions. Furthermore, the scale-degree model generates a much
greater variety of syntactic progressions than the pure root-motion model considered
earlier in Example 3. Finally, the model does a reasonably good job of capturing the
relative preponderance of the various types of progression found in Bachs music. In
particular, this scale-degree model accurately represents the high proportion of I-V-I and
I-IV-I progressions in the chorales.
Nevertheless, a few differences between Bachs practice and the output of the
model call for comment.
a. Repetitive progressions. Certain progressions produced by the model are
highly repetitive, and seem unlikely to have been written by Bach. For example, the
progression I-vi-V-vi-V-I, involves a rather unstylistic oscillation between vi and V. In
the progression I-ii-V-vi-IV-V-vi-V-I, the first V-vi progression weakens the effect of the
second, spoiling its surprising, deceptive character. The problem here is, clearly, that
the Markov model has no memory. The probability that a V chord will progress to a vi
chord is always the same for every V chord, no matter what comes before it. Such
difficulties are endemic to first-order Markov models and can be ameliorated only by
providing the system with a more sophisticated memory of past events.19
b. IV-I progressions. The model produced two progressions that do not appear in
Bachs chorales: I-vi-IV-I and I-V-vi-IV-I. While it is conceivable that Bach could have
written such progressions, there is something slightly odd about them: IV-I progressions
tend to occur as part of a three-chord I-IV-I sequence; furthermore, such sequences are
more likely to occur near the beginning of a phrase (or as a separate, coda-like conclusion
to a phrase), than as the normal conclusion of an extended chord progression. This is
again a memory issue. The first order Markov model has no way of distinguishing

19

These problems also beset simple maps such as that proposed by Kostka and Payne.

Tymoczko15

between the typical progression I-IV-I-V-I and the rather more atypical I-V-I-ii-V-vi-IVI.20
c. Non-root-functional progressions. The Markov-model, like the earlier rootmotion model, does not reproduce inversion-specific progressions such as vi-I6 or V-IV6.
This problem is easily correctible. All that is needed is to add new states to the model
that represent the I6 and IV6 chords. (These states would be very similar to those which
represented the root-positions of the same chords; their main function would be to permit
progressions like vi-I6 while ruling out progressions like vi-I.) I have chosen not to do so
for the sake of simplicity. Yet it is perhaps an advantage of the scale-degree model that it
can easily account for such progressions. By contrast, it is harder to see how one might
alter a root-motion theory to account for the existence of inversion-specific chord
progressions.
d. Tonal idioms. Tonal music features a number of characteristic medium-length
chord sequences such as V-IV6-V6 and I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V. These could be considered
idioms of the tonal language, in that they are both grammatically irregular and
statistically frequent. A pure scale-degree theory cannot account for these progressions.
Instead, they need to be added to the model individually, as exceptions that nevertheless
typify the style.
Despite these limitations, however, the simple first-order Markov model does a
surprisingly good job of approximating the progressions of elementary diatonic harmony.
In particular, it does a much better job than the pure root-motion perspective considered
in the previous section. But this should not be taken to mean that the root-motion view
has been completely superseded. For the scale-degree theory we have been considering
incorporates some of the principal observations of the previous section. Surveying the
matrices in Examples 9 and 10(a), we can see that they themselves validate two of
Meeuss claims: dominant progressions are indeed more frequent than subdominant
progressions; and subdominant progressions are confined to a smaller set of
progression-types. Indeed, it is easy to see that the matrices in Example 9 and 10(a) will
generate asymmetrical root-motion statistics of the sort we found earlier (Example 4[a]).
20

A similar problem would confront the theorist who tried to incorporate the cadential six-four chord into
the model.

Tymoczko16

By contrast, one cannot generate these matrices themselves from Meeuss pure rootmotion principles. In this sense the scale-degree theory is richer than the root-motion
view.
Example 11 provides another perspective on the relationship between scaledegree and root-motion theories. Here I have summarized Example 9, identifying the
extent to which chords on each scale degree tend to participate in dominant and
subdominant progressions in Meeuss sense. Thus, the first line of Example 11(a)
shows that 94% of the two-chord progressions beginning with V are dominant
progressions in Meeuss sense, while only 6% are subdominant progressions. (For the
purposes of this table, I have discounted chord-repetitions, which Example 9 shows as
root motions from a chord to itself.) We see that there is a striking difference in the
degree to which each chord participates in dominant progressions. While the V and the
vii chord move almost exclusively by way of dominant progressions, the I chord
participates in an almost even balance of dominant and subdominant root motion.
Example 11(b) shows that root-motion asymmetry in general increases as one
moves down the cycle of thirds from I to V. Comparing Example 11(b) to Example 2,
we see that in ordering the primary diatonic triads with respect to their tendency to move
asymmetrically, we obtain almost the same descending-thirds ordering we used to
generate Example 2. Only the iii chord, which in Example 11(b) occurs between IV and
ii, disturbs the parallel. (I have placed the chord on its own line in Example 11[b], to
heighten the visual relationship between Examples 2 and 11[b].) The resemblance
between Examples 2 and 11(b) suggests two thoughts. First, Meeuss contrast between
modal and diatonic progressions is actually a very apt description of the difference
between chord-tendencies within the diatonic system. Recall that Meeus postulated that
modal music is characterized by a relative indifference between dominant and
subdominant progressions, while tonal music is characterized by a strong preference
for dominant root-progressions. Example 11(b) shows that within Bachs tonal
language, the I chord moves more or less indifferently by way of dominant and
subdominant progressions, while the V and vii chords are strongly biased toward
dominant progressions. Thus we could say that chord-motion beginning with I is

Tymoczko17

modal in Meeuss sense, while chord-motion beginning with V, vii, and, to a lesser
extent, ii, is tonal. It is therefore an oversimplification to suggest that tonal harmony in
general is biased toward dominant progressions. Rather, the bias belongs to a limited
set of chords within the diatonic universe.
The second thought suggested by Example 11(b) is that Meeuss speculative
genealogy of the origins of the tonal system has become much more problematic. Recall
that on Meeuss account, the tonal system arose as the result of an increasing preference
for dominant root-progressions. Example 11(b) suggests that by the time Bach
developed his harmonic language, a second process must also have occurred: namely, the
loosening of the preference for dominant progressions in the case of the tonic and
submediant harmonies. I find this two-stage hypothesis somewhat implausible. It seems
much simpler to propose that the tonal system arose as the result of an increasing
awareness of the V and vii chords as having a distinctive tendency to progress to I.
Recall, in this connection, that Example 9 shows that V and vii chords both tend to
progress by way of different dominant progressions: the V chord usually moves down
by fifth to I, whereas the vii chord tends to move up by step to I. What is common is not
the type of root motion involved, but rather the fact that both chords tend to move to I.
All of this accords much better with the scale-degree rather than the root-motion
perspective.
b) Function theories
Function theories descend from Riemann (1893). These theories, as Agmon
(1995) emphasizes, have two components. The first groups chords together into
categories. For Riemann, V, vii, and iii together comprise the dominant chords; IV, ii,
and vi comprise the subdominant chords; and I, iii, and vi comprise the tonic chords.
(Note that iii and vi each belong to two categories.) The second component of a function
theory postulates an allowable set of motions between functional categoriesusually,
motion from tonic to subdominant to dominant and back to tonic. It is a characteristic of
many function theories that the categorization of chords and the identification of
normative patterns of chord motion proceed by way of different principles. Thus

Tymoczko18

Riemann categorized chords by way of common-tone-preserving operations such as

relative and leading-tone exchange. Identification of normative patterns of
functional progression occurs independently.
There are two different ways to understand the notion of chordal functions. The
first, and more common, posits functions as psychological realities, asserting that we hear
chords in single functional category as having perceptible similarities. Thus, on this
account, the progressions ii-iii-I and IV-V-I are experienced as being psychologically
similar, since both involve motion between functionally identical chords (subdominant to
dominant to tonic). This sort of function theory does significant work merely by
categorizing chords. For by grouping them into psychologically robust categories it
makes important claims about how we hear the full range of possible diatonic
progressions. Indeed, a function theory of this sort could be informative even if there
were no functional regularities among tonal chord progressions: for by postulating
psychologically real tonal functions, it asserts that we can categorize all possible diatonic
chord progressions into a smaller set of perceptually similar groups.
The second way to think about functions does not postulate that they have
psychological reality. On this view functions are mere contrivances, useful in that they
simplify the rules that describe the permissible chord progressions. (This is the view
taken in Dahlhaus 1968.) Consider for example, the following syntactic tonal chord
sequences:
I-ii-V-I
I-IV-V-I
I-ii-vii-I
I-IV-vii-I
We can describe these four permissible tonal progressions using the single rule that
chords can progress from tonic to subdominant to dominant to tonic. No assertion need
be made about the psychological reality of chord functions; indeed, it may be that we
hear these four progressions in completely different ways. Notice that in this sort of

Tymoczko19

function theory, the grouping of chords into functional categories cannot be separated
from the description of normative patterns of chord progression. For what justifies
grouping V and vii together as dominant chords, is simply the fact that both chords
tend to move in similar ways.
Let us consider a function theory of the second type. We will ask to what extent
we can group chords into functional categories on the basis of shared patterns of root
motion. Returning to Example 9, we notice that the rows of the table can be used to
define a probability vector that gives the chance that, in Bachs harmonic language, a
chord of a given type will move to any other chord. Using the percentages from the first
row of Example 9, we can see that the probability vector for the I chord is [23% 11% 0%
23% 31% 8% 6%]. We can consider functions to be resemblances between these vectors.
Two chords that have the same function will tend to move to the same chords, with
similar probabilities.
We can measure the similarities among these probability vectors using the
common statistical measure known as the Pearson correlation coefficient.21 Example 12
presents the correlations among these vectors. The two highest values indicate
correlations among chords commonly thought to be functionally equivalent. There is an
extremely strong correlation (of .98) between the vectors for V and vii. This suggests
that we have a reason for grouping these chords together as dominant chords, solely on
the basis of their tendencies to move similarly.
The next highest correlation is between ii and IV, both commonly considered
subdominant triads. The correlation here, .774, is significantly lower than that between
21

The Pearson correlation coefficient, commonly called correlation, measures whether there is a linear
relationship between two variables. The value of a correlation ranges between 1 and 1. A correlation of 1
between two sets of values X and Y, means that there is an equation
Y = aX + b

(a and b constant, a > 0)

that can be used to exactly predict each value of Y from the corresponding value of X. Thus, Y increases
proportionally with X. Lower positive correlations indicate that the prediction of Y involves a greater
degree of error. A negative correlation indicates that there is an equation
Y = aX + b

(a < 0)

linking the variables. Thus, Y decreases as X gets larger. A correlation of 0 indicates that there is no
linear relation between the quantities. When X is large, Y is sometimes large, and sometimes small.

Tymoczko20

V and vii chords, and suggests that ii and IV behave quite differently. A glance at
Example 9 shows why this is so. The IV chord has a much higher tendency to return to
the I chord than does the ii chord. (The figures are 24% for the IV-I progression as
compared to 8% for ii-I.) This is, in fact, the major reason why ii and IV are less closely
correlated than vii and V: if we were to reduce the IV-chords tendency to move to I to
8% (equivalent to the ii chords tendency to move to I) then the correlation between IV
and ii would leap to the very high .96.
Interestingly, there is a tradition in music theory that helps us interpret this fact.
Following Nadia Boulanger, Robert Levin has articulated the view that the IV chord
possesses two distinct tonal functions: a plagal function associated with the IV chords
tendency to move to I, and a predominant function associated with its tendency to
move otherwise. We can express this idea in our more quantitative terms by saying that
the probability vector for the IV chord can be decomposed into two independent vectors
representing two different tonal functions:
IV
=

[24 12 2 10 29 4 18]
=

plagal IV

[16 0 0 0 0 0 0]

predominant IV

[8 12 2 10 29 4 8]

Again, it is suggestive that there is a very high correlation (.96) between the
predominant component of IVs behavior and the probability vector for the ii chord.
This suggests grouping the IV and ii togetherwith the proviso that the IV chord also
participates in distinctive, plagal motions.
Let us now try to use this method to verify the assertions that the iii chord can
function as both tonic and dominant, and that the vi chord can function as both
predominant and tonic. The natural way to interpret these proposals is to try to correlate
the probability vectors associated with iii and vi chords with linear combinations of

Tymoczko21

vectors representing their proposed functions. Thus it would be interesting if there were
some positive numbers a and b such that
iiiv =c aIv + bVv

or

viv =c aIv + biiv

(Here the subscript v indicates the vector associated with the relevant chord; and the
symbol =c should be read as is very highly correlated with.) The above equations
express the thought that the vector associated with the iii chord is extremely highly
correlated with some mixture of the vectors associated with I and V, and the vector
associated with the vi chord is highly correlated with some mixture of the vectors
associated with ii and I.
Unfortunately, there are no positive numbers a and b that produce a correlation of
the sort desired. Some care must be taken in interpreting this fact. Correlation, useful
though it is, measures only one type of relationship, and it is particularly unsuited to
capturing our intuitions about the relationships among relatively even probability
distributions.22 For this reason, we should be careful not to think we have refuted
Riemanns theory of the iii and vi chord. At the same time, our failure may lead us to
wonder about the viability of Riemanns functional classifications. Is it helpful to think
of the iii chord as being both tonic and dominant? Is the vi chord both
subdominant and tonic? Or should we instead understand these chords as
independent entities, functionally sui generis?
There are two issues here. The first is that Riemann classifies as functionally
similar chords which, in Bachs chorales, typically participate in very different sorts of
chord motion. For Riemann, IV and ii are both subdominant chords, but I-IV-I is
common while I-ii-I is not. Likewise, Riemann classifies iii and V as dominant chords,
but IV-V-I is common while IV-iii-I is not. Thus we cannot identify the syntactical chord
progressions in functional terms alone. Instead, we need to add additional, chord-specific

22

The correlation between the vector [1 0 0] and [.34 .33 .33] is 1, even though the former represents a
maximally uneven distribution of probabilities, while the latter is very even. Conversely, the correlation
between [.34 .33 .33] and [.33 .33 .34] is -.5, even though these two distributions are both very even. For
this reason, I consider arguments based on statistical correlation to be at best suggestive.

Tymoczko22

principles which distinguish between functionally identical progressions. The second

difficulty is that the vi and iii chords possess multiple functions, so that it is not always
clear how to evaluate chord progressions in functional terms. Is the progression iii-IV a
typical T-S progression or an nonstandard D-S progression? Does a rule permitting T-ST progressions justify the use of I-vi-I? Function theorists are not always explicit about
how to decide such questions. This again means that Riemanns categories are not
sufficient for identifying the commonly-used chord progressions.
In light of this, it seems reasonable to conclude that one cannot defend Riemanns
functional categories without attributing psychological reality to functions.23 For if one
treats functions as mere conveniences, useful for simplifying the description of the
syntactical progressions of tonal harmony, then one is forced to conclude that Riemanns
categories are overly broad. There are, to be sure, good reasons for grouping V and vii
as dominant chords (since both overwhelmingly tend to move to the tonic), and for
grouping ii and IV as predominants (since both tend to progress to dominant
harmonies). But there are not the same strong reasons for classifying the iii and vi chords
as part of larger functional groups. Different theorists have responded to this difficulty in
different ways. Some, like Kostka and Payne, adopt a hybrid view, using smaller
functional categories to associate ii and IV, and V and vi, while treating iii and vi as
independent entitiesmuch as a scale-degree theorist would. Others, such as Agmon,
have retained Riemanns categories, attempting to justify them in cognitive and
psychological terms.
I will not consider this second approach, as my concern here is simply with the
attempt to provide an efficient grammar of elementary major-mode harmony. It is worth
noting, however, that the first approach represents an extremely small modification to the
scale-degree theory considered above. For if one interprets functions simply as
similarities among chord-tendencies, rather than in substantive psychological or
metaphysical terms, then there is hardly any difference between scale-degree and
function theorists. A pure scale-degree theorist would assert that the triads on each of
the seven scale degrees are independent entities, each behaving in its own characteristic
23

Dahlhaus 1968 tries to defend both of these theses simultaneously.

Tymoczko23

way. The function view we have been considering merely adds that some of these chords
behave in similar enough ways to justify grouping them together in categories. It is hard
to imagine why a scale-degree theorist would want to deny this.
3. Conclusion.
Of the three views we have considered, the scale-degree theory, implemented as a
first-order Markov model, yields the best grammar of elementary tonal harmony. The
root-motion theory is too restrictive: while it captures an important subset of the tonal
progressions (the T-S-D-T progressions), it cannot adequately explain the prevalence of
I-V-I and I-IV-I progressions. More generally, its commitment to scale-degree symmetry
means it cannot account for the highly asymmetrical subdominant progressions. By
contrast, an expansive function theoryone which upholds Riemanns functional
categories, and which attempts to identify the syntactic chord progressions in functional
terms alonehas proved to be overly permissive. For this kind of theory does not have
the resources to explain the differences between functionally identical progressions such
as I-IV-I and I-ii-I. The scale-degree model exemplified by Example 10 strikes a good
middle ground, capturing a large number of syntactic progressions without producing
many erroneous progressions. Furthermore, the scale-degree model incorporates many of
the important insights from the other two theories. As we have seen, it has many of the
features that root-motion theorists take to define tonal harmony: it exhibits root-motion
asymmetry, generating more dominant than subdominant progressions, and permits
the full range of dominant progressions on many scale-degrees. The scale-degree model
also suggests a restricted sort of functionalism, one which groups ii and IV together as
subdominant chords, and V and vii as dominants.
There are, of course, problems with the model. The fact that it has no memory
means that it is liable to produce repetitive sequences and to make inappropriate use of
plagal progressions. It cannot account for some of the subtler features of elementary
tonal syntax, such as inversion-specific and other idiomatic progressions. But these
problems are all relatively tractable. It would be fairly easy for someone, interested in
exploring artificial intelligence models of elementary diatonic harmony, to write a

Tymoczko24

computer program that corrected these difficulties. Such a program would essentially
encode the higher-level principles internalized by human musiciansprinciples like
avoid unmotivated repetition, and the cadential six-four is most common at the end of
a phrase.
It is instructive to consider one important way in which the Markov model does
not fail. Noam Chomsky (1958) famously demonstrated that natural languages cannot be
modeled by finite-state Markov chains. The basic idea is that natural languages permit a
kind of recursive, hierarchical structuring that demands a similarly recursive grammar.
For example, the simple sentence
1) The man bought a dog.
can be used to form an infinite variety of longer sentences of potentially limitless
complexity. One can embellish it with dependent phrases that can themselves contain
whole sentences:
2) The blind, one-legged man who owned the car that ran over my little brothers
favorite bicycle bought a mangy, unkempt, flea-bitten dog, which barked like a
hyena.
We can also embed it as a component of longer sentences:
3) Either the man bought a dog or his wife bought it.
4) Greg, Peter, and the other man bought a bicycle, a boat, and a dog,
respectively.
An adequate grammar of English needs to express the fact that phrases and sentences
form syntactic units that can be recursively combined. To do so, it must have capabilities

Tymoczko25

that go beyond those of a simple finite-state probabilistic Markov model. (In Chomskys
parlance, it must be a Type 2 rather than a Type 3 grammar.)
Schenkerian theorists sometimes suggest that musical grammar has a similar sort
of recursive complexity.24 The idea is that a simple chord progression such as
5) I-V-I
Can be embellished with numerous subsidiary (or prolongational progressions):
6) I-V6-I-I6-ii6-V-I
Orthodox Schenkerians see these hierarchical embeddings as extending across very large
spans of time. Indeed, it is typical to analyze whole movements as prolonging (or
embellishing) a single fundamental (or background) I-V-I chord progression.25
Notice, however, that there is a crucial difference between the hierarchical
structures in natural language and those we purportedly find in elementary tonal
harmony. The harmonic progression (6) can be analyzed as a concatenation of two
perfectly syntactical progressions:
I-V6-I

and

I6-ii6-V-I

By contrast, sentences (2)(4) cannot be analyzed as a concatenation of grammatically

well-formed subsentences. Thus in the natural language case, we are required to
postulate a hierarchical grammar in order to account for our most basic intuitions about
grammaticality. This is not true in the musical case. Tonal harmony generally consists in
24

For example, Salzer (1982, 10-14) raises a complaint about Roman-numeral analysis that is in some ways
parallel to Chomskys criticism of finite-state Markov chains.
25
Note that there is a vast difference in scale between the hierarchies of Chomskian linguists and those of
Schenkerian analysts. For linguists, hierarchical structuring typically appears in single sentences. For
Schenkerians, hierarchical structuring applies to the length of entire musical movements, which tend to be
several orders of magnitude longer than single sentences. This reflects the fact that Schenkerian theory was
born out of nineteenth-century ideas about the organic unity of great artworks: in demonstrating that
great tonal works prolong a single I-V-I progression, Schenker took himself to be demonstrating that these
works were organic wholes.

Tymoczko26

a concatenation of relatively short, well-formed chord progressions, each of which tends

to express clear T-(S)-D-T functionality.26
Where this leaves us is an open question. Those who favor a concatenationist
approach may feel that this demonstrates that music does not possess anything as
complex as a grammar. If we can, indeed, model tonal harmonies with something like
a finite-state Markov model, then this just shows how far music is from the rich structures
of natural language. Others may feel that music does display complex hierarchical
structure akin to that of natural language, but that this structure is not manifested by the
harmonic progressions alone. Instead, hierarchy in music will be conveyedas Schenker
asserted it wasby details of rhythm, phrasing, and register. (Some Schenkerians have
even argued that the very attempt to consider harmony in isolation from counterpoint, as I
have done in this paper, involves a profound methodological mistake.27) I will not
attempt to settle this matter. But I will say that recent critics have overstated the case
against the scale-degree perspective. For as we have seen, the theory provides a fairly
good model for elementary diatonic harmonya nearly adequate grammar, whose basic
principles are amply confirmed by empirical evidence. While scale-degree theories may
not represent the last word in harmonic thinking, they surely form an important
component of any adequate theory of tonal harmony.

26

Typically, these individual progressions will vary in their perceived strength or importance: some (like
the ii6-V-I progression in [6]) may be felt to be more conclusive than others. But this does not in itself
compel us to adopt a hierarchical picture. After all, the sentences in a well-written paragraph of English
differ in their weight and perceived importance. But linguists do not tend to assert hierarchical structures
that extend across sentence boundaries.
27
See Beach 1974 for polemical comments to this effect. My own view is that the data presented in this
paper shows that tonal harmonies have a clear structure, even when considered in isolation. One wonders:
would Beach assert that it is mere coincidence that tonal music tends to involve a small number of
recurring harmonic patterns?

APPENDIX: The 30 Chorales used in this study.

Title

Key

Riemenschnieder

BWV

O Welt, ich mu dich lassen

Aflat
Eflat
Eflat
Bflat
Bflat
Bflat
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
E

117

244.10

Breitkopf/
Kalmus
294

299

380

242

306

402

286

101

164.6

127

272

348

177

350

360

364

68
176
303
323
368
200
223
268
282
1
67
69
158
248
328
361
24
98
255
2
32
177
366
290

431
306
96.6
172.6
248(4).42
284
346
389
25.6
269
39.7
226.2
294
117.4
373
248(2).12
415
244.15
64.4
347
386
253
394
9.7

358
85
128
376

Meinen Jesum la ich nicht

O Mensch, bewein dein' Snde gro
Herr Christ, der einge Gottessohn
Ich dank dir, lieber Herre
Jesu, meiner Freuden Freude
Wenn wir in hchsten Nten sein
Erstanden ist der heilige Christ
Herr Christ, der einge Gottessohn
Wie schn leuchtet der Morgenstern
Hilf, Herr Jesu, la gelingen 2
Christus ist erstanden
Ich dank dir Gott fr alle Wohltat
Nun lob, mein Seel, den Herren
Wie nach einer Wasserquelle
Aus meines Herzens Grunde
Wie nach einer Wasserquelle
Komm, heiliger Geist, Herre Gott
Der Tag, der ist so freudenreich
Es ist das Heil uns kommen her
Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier
Ermuntre dich, mein schwacher Geist
Valet will ich dir geben
Herzlich tut mich verlangen
Die Wollust dieser Welt
Ich dank dir, lieber Herre
Nun danket alle Gott
Ach bleib bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ
O Welt, sieh hier dein Leben
Es ist das Heil uns kommen her

51
175
269
30
104
221
62
90
228
80
314
163
280
176
257
1
290
87

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldwell, Edward and Schachter, Carl. 2002. Harmony and Voice Leading. 3rd edition.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Agmon, Eytan. 1995. Functional Harmony Revisited: A Prototype-Theoretic
Approach. Music Theory Spectrum 17:2, 196-214.
Beach, David. 1974. "The Origins of Harmonic Analysis." Journal of Music Theory 18.2,
274-30
Chomsky, Noam. 1958. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Dahlhaus, Carl. 1968. Untersuchungen ber die Entstehung der harmonischen Tonalitt.
Kassel: Brenreiter.
Kostka, Stefan and Payne, Dorothy. 2000. Tonal Harmony. Fourth Edition. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Meeus, Nicolas. 2000. Toward a Post-Schoenbergian Grammar of Tonal and Pre-tonal
Harmonic Progressions. Music Theory Online 6:1.
Rameau, Jean Paul. 1722. Trait de lharmonie, Paris: Ballard. Translated by Philip
Gossett as Treatise on Harmony. New York: Dover, 1971.
Riemann, Hugo. 1893. Vereinfachte Harmonielehre. London: Augener.
Schoenberg, Arnold. [1954] 1969. Structural Functions of Harmony . Edited by Leonard
Stein. New York: Norton.
Sadai, Yizhak. 1980. Harmony in its Systemic and Phenomenological Aspects.
Jerusalem: Yanetz.
Salzer, Felix. [1961] 1982. Structural Hearing. New York: Dover.
Vogler, Georg. 1776. Tonwissenschaft und Tonsezkunst. Mannheim, Kurfrstliche
Hofbuchdruckerei.
Weber, Gottfried. 1817-21.Versuch einer gordneten Theorie der Tonsetzkunst. 3 vols.
Mainz: B. Schott.

Example 1. Meeuss classification of tonal chord progressions

CATEGORY
Dominant
Subdominant

MAIN PROGRESSION
A fifth down
A fifth up

SUBSTITUTES
A third down or a second up
A third up or a second down

Example 2. Diatonic triads in descending-third sequence

I -> vi -> IV -> ii -> vii -> V -> [iii]

-> I

Example 3. Progressions produced by the root-motion model

PROGRESSION

FUNCTIONAL TYPE

I-ii-V-I
I-ii-vii-I
I-ii-vii-V-I

T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T

I-IV-V-I
I-IV-vii-I
I-IV-vii-V-I
I-IV-ii-V-I
I-IV-ii-vii-I
I-IV-ii-vii-V-I

T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T
T-S-D-T

I-vi-vii-I
I-vi-vii-V-I
I-vi-ii-V-I
I-vi-ii-vii-I
I-vi-ii-vii-V-I
I-vi-IV-V-I
I-vi-IV-vii-I
I-vi-IV-vii-V-I
I-vi-IV-ii-V-I
I-vi-IV-ii-vii-I
I-vi-IV-ii-vii-V-I

T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T
T-PS-S-D-T

T = tonic, PS = pre-subdominant; S = subdominant, and D = dominant

Example 4. Root progressions in Bach and Palestrina

a) in Bach chorales

FIFTH
THIRD
SECOND

DOWN
1842 (35%)
682 (13%)
318 (6%)

UP
510 (10%)
533 (10%)
1354 (26%)

5240 total progressions, of which 74% are dominant.

b) in Palestrina

FIFTH
THIRD
SECOND

DOWN
319 (28%)
253 (22%)
91 (8%)

UP
168 (14%)
152 (13%)
176 (15%)

1159 total progressions, of which 65% are dominant.

Example 5. Chord progressions in Bach chorales, categorized according to functional type

1.T-D-T
I-V-I
I-vii-I

63 progressions
S-D
S-D

59
4

2. T-S-D-T
I-IV-V-I
I-ii-V-I

D-D-D
D-D-D

15
15

I-ii-I-V-I
I-ii-vii-I
I-IV-vii-I
I-IV-ii-V-I
I-IV-ii-vii-I

D-D-D
D-D-D
D-D-D
D-D-D-D
D-D-D-D

1
11
7
2
1

I-IV-ii- I-V-I

D-D-D-D

53 progressions

3. T-S-T
I-IV-I

18 progressions
D-S

18

4. Progressions involving vi or IV6

a. vi as pre-predominant, as bass arpeggiation,
and as predominant
I-vi-ii-V-I
D-D-D-D
I-vi-IV-V-I
D-D-D-D
I-vi-IV-ii-V-I
D-D-D-D-D
6
I-vi-I -V-I
D-S-S-D
I-vi-V-I
D-S-D

6
1
1
1
2

b. vi and IV6 as part of a deceptive progression

I-V-vi-IV-vii-I
S-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-IV-V-I
S-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-I6-V-I
S-D-S-S-D
6
I-IV-V-vi-I -V-I
D-D-D-D-S-S-D

3
1
1
1

I-IV-V-vi-I-V-I

D-D-D-S-D

D-D-D-S-S-D-D-D

I-vi-IV-V-IV -I-ii -V-I

6

c. vi and IV6 expanding V

I-V-IV6-vii7-I
I-V-IV6-V6-I
I-IV-V-IV6-vii7-I
I-IV-V-vi-vii[5/3]-I
I-IV-V-IV6-V6-I
I-IV-V-IV6-I-V
I-V6-vi6-vii6-I6

11 progressions

8 progressions

9 progressions
S-S-D-D
S-S-D-D
D-D-S-D-D
D-D-D-D-D
D-D-S-D-D
D-D-S-S-D
S-D-D-D

3
1
1
1
1
1
1

5. V6 initiating stepwise descent in the bass

I-V6-IV6-vi-ii6-V-I
S-S-S-D-D-D
6
6
I-V -vi-V -I
S-D-S-D
I-V6-vi-I6-ii6-V-IV6-vii-I S-D-S-D-D-S-D-D

1
1
1

6. Progressions involving iii

I-IV6-iii-vi-ii-vii-I
D-S-D-D-D-D
6
I-vi-iii-IV-I-ii -V-I
D-S-D-S-D-D-D

1
1

7. Strange progressions
I-IV-iii-IV-V-I
I-IV-vii-IV6-I

3 progressions

2 progressions

2 progressions
D-S-D-D-D
D-D-S-S

1 (derives from I-IV-I-V-I )

1 (IV6-I harmonizes a suspension)

Example 6. Dominant chord progressions which do not appear in Example 5

a) Progressions involving iii
iiiii
Viii
viiiii
iiiI
b) Other progressions
viiV

Example 7. Subdominant progressions appearing in Example 5

Progression Type Number of Appearances
I-V
75 (63%)
IV-I
19 (16%)
6
V-IV
10 (8%)
I-vii
4 (3%)
6
vi-I
4 (3%)
vi-V
3 (3%)
vi-iii
1 (1%)
IV6vi
1 (1%)
6
IV -iii
1 (1%)
6
vii-IV
1 (1%)

Example 8. Kostka and Payne's map of tonal harmony

Example 8. Kostka and Paynes map of major-mode harmony

iii

vi

IV

vii

ii

Example 9. Scale-degree progressions in the Bach chorales

I
ii
iii
IV
V
vi
vii

I
73 (23%)
7 (8%)
0 (0%)
33 (24%)
174 (67%)
10 (11%)
43 (81%)

ii
36 (11%)
12 (14%)
4 (20%)
16 (12%)
2 (1%)
19 (22%)
0 (0%)

iii
1 (0%)
1 (1%)
1 (5%)
3 (2%)
3 (1%)
5 (6%)
2 (4%)

IV
74 (23%)
2 (2%)
5 (25%)
14 (10%)
11 (4%)
16 (18%)
3 (6%)

V
99 (31%)
39 (45%)
1 (5%)
40 (29%)
40 (15%)
18 (21%)
3 (6%)

vi
26 (8%)
5 (6%)
8 (40%)
5 (4%)
29 (11%)
9 (10%)
2 (4%)

vii
6 (2%)
20 (23%)
1 (5%)
25 (18%)
0 (0%)
10 (11%)
0 (0%)

Example 10. A simple Markov model of tonal harmony

a) the matrix used by the model

I
ii
iii
IV
V
vi
vii

I
0%
0%
0%
29%
86%
0%
100%

ii
14%
0%
0%
14%
0%
31%
0%

iii
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

IV
30%
0%
86%
0%
0%
25%
0%

V
41%
61%
0%
35%
0%
29%
0%

vi
11%
8%
14%
0%
14%
0%
0%

b) progressions produced by the model

1.T-D-T
I-V-I
I-vii-I

S-D
S-D

69
2

2. T-S-D-T
I-IV-V-I
I-ii-V-I
I-ii-vii-I
I-IV-vii-I
I-IV-ii-V-I
I-IV-ii-vii-I

D-D-D
D-D-D
D-D-D
D-D-D
D-D-D-D
D-D-D-D

20
16
6
11
5
1

3. T-S-T
I-IV-I

71 progressions

59 progressions

13 progressions
D-S

13

4. Progressions involving vi
a. vi as pre-subdominant and as subdominant
I-vi-ii-V-I
D-D-D-D
I-vi-IV-V-I
D-D-D-D
I-vi-vii-I
D-D-D
I-vi-V-I
D-S-D

2
1
2
4

b. vi as part of a deceptive progression

I-V-vi-vii-I
S-D-D-D
I-V-vi-ii-V-I
S-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-IV-V-I
S-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-IV-vii-I
S-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-IV-ii-vii-I
S-D-D-D-D-D
I-V-vi-V-I
S-D-S-D

2
2
1
1
1
1

9 progressions

12 progressions

vii
3%
31%
0%
22%
0%
15%
0%

I-ii-V-vi-ii-V-I
I-IV-V-vi-IV-V-I
I-IV-V-vi-V-I
I-V-vi-ii-vi-IV-V-I

D-D-D-D-D-D
D-D-D-D-D-D
D-D-D-S-D
D-D-D-S-D-D-D

5. Problematic progressions
a. repetitive progressions
I-ii-V-vi-IV-V-vi-V-I
D-D-D-D-D-D-S-D
I-vi-V-vi-V-I
D-S-D-S-D
b. IV-I occurring late in the progression
I-vi-IV-I
D-D-S
I-V-vi-IV-I
S-D-D-S

1
1
1
1
5 progressions
1
1
2
1

Example 11. Asymmetry between dominant and subdominant progressions, expressed as

a function of chord-type
a)

V
vii
ii
iii
IV
vi
I

Dominant
Progressions
94%
91%
81%
68%
66%
58%
56%

Subdominant
Progressions
6%
9%
19%
32%
34%
42%
44%

b)
I (56%) -> vi (58%) ->IV (66%) -> ii (81%)-> vii (91%) -> V(94%)
[iii 68%]

Example 12. Correlations among diatonic probability-vectors.

I
ii
iii
IV
V
vi
vii

I
1.000
0.440
-0.110
0.686
0.475
0.646
0.376

ii
0.440
1.000
-0.373
0.774
-0.042
0.502
-0.170

iii
-0.110
-0.373
1.000
-0.604
-0.370
0.135
-0.422

IV
0.686
0.774
-0.604
1.000
0.511
0.451
0.434

V
0.475
-0.042
-0.370
0.511
1.000
-0.137
0.980

vi
0.646
0.502
0.135
0.451
-0.137
1.000
-0.200

vii
0.376
-0.170
-0.422
0.434
0.980
-0.200
1.000